comparison of landmark position between conventional … · 2009-01-12 · graphic image, the...
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
427
aDirector, Department of Orthodontics, Kooalldam Dental Hospital.
bPostgraduate student, Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul
National University.cProfessor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul
National University.
Corresponding author: Namkug Kim.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University, 599,
Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
+82 2 9073 4282; e-mail, [email protected].
Received April 16, 2008; Last Revision July 26, 2008; Accepted
August 3, 2008.
DOI:10.4041/kjod.2008.38.6.427
Comparison of landmark position between conventional
cephalometric radiography and CT scans projected to
midsagittal plane
Jae-Woo Park, DDS, MSD, PhD,a Namkug Kim, MS, PhD,
b Young-Il Chang, DDS, MSD, PhD
c
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare landmark position between cephalometric radiography and midsagittal plane projected images from 3 dimensional (3D) CT. Methods: Cephalometric radiographs and CT scans were taken from 20 patients for treatment of mandibular prognathism. After selection of land-marks, CT images were projected to the midsagittal plane and magnified to 110% according to the magni-fying power of radiographs. These 2 images were superimposed with frontal and occipital bone. Common coordinate system was established on the base of FH plane. The coordinate value of each landmark was compared by paired t test and mean and standard deviation of difference was calculated. Results: The difference was from −0.14 ± 0.65 to −2.12 ± 2.89 mm in X axis, from 0.34 ± 0.78 to −2.36 ± 2.55 mm (6.79 ± 3.04 mm) in Y axis. There was no significant difference only 9 in X axis, and 7 in Y axis out of 20 landmarks. This might be caused by error from the difference of head positioning, by masking the subtle end structures, identification error from the superimposition and error from the different definition. Conclusions: This study revealed innate shortcomings of radiography. For the development of 3D ceph-alometry, more study was needed. (Korean J Orthod 2008;38(6):427-436)
Key words: Landmark position, Cephalometric radiography, Projected images from 3D CT
INTRODUCTION
Ever since Broadbent1 first introduced cephalometric
radiography, it was widely accepted that there were 2
general classes of error in the position of cephalometic
landmarks, one was error of projection and the other
was error of identification. The errors of projection re-
sult from the fact that the head film is a 2 dimensional
(2D) shadow of a 3 dimensional (3D) object. Since
X-ray beams are nonparallel and originate from a very
small source, head films are always enlarged, accord-
ing to the distances between the focus, the object, and
the film.2 Ahlqvist et al.
3 concluded that the projection
errors in linear measurements were not a serious pro-
blem in cephalometry from a theoretical point of view.
The errors of identification are the errors of identify-
ing specific landmarks on the headfilm. Midtgard et
al.4 suggested that the differences in measurement have
the most part depended on the errors of identification.
Tng et al.5 insisted that each landmark has its own
characteristic envelope of error. Henceforth, the land-
marks estimated on the cephalometric radiographs dif-
fered from the true anatomical landmarks. The sources
Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI 대치교정지 38권 6호, 2008년
428
of error might result from the quality of the radio-
graphic image, the precision of landmark definition, the
subjectiveness of the reader, machine errors in point
location, and errors in the registration procedures. Howev-
er, these limitations could not disregard the diagnostic
value of the cephalometric radiograph. Houston et al.6
showed that the radiographic errors could be kept to an
acceptably low level for most purposes with careful
control. Henceforth, orthodontists have routinely used
an array of 2D static imaging techniques to record the
3D anatomy of the craniofacial region.
Some pioneers tried to perform 3D analysis of the
craniofacial structure with multiple radiographs. Broad-
bent1 made the first attempt with his original design of
the cephalostat. Grayson et al.7 proposed a 3D multi-
plane cephalometric analysis for craniofacial asymme-
try, but it was only a study of structures in various co-
ronal and transverse planes. Baumrind et al.8 sought a
mechanical solution to improve landmark identification
in 3 dimensions. Grayson et al.9 followed the same
technique as that of the Broadbent “Orientator”, and
tried to derive certain analyses in 3D form. Kusnoto et
al.10 investigated the reliability of linear and angular
measurements produced by the biplanar cephalometric
radiographs. They suggested that the biplanar projec-
tion provides not only greater accuracy but also clin-
ical practicality for both linear and angular measure-
ments compared with direct or CT measurements.
Rousset et al.11 developed a new method to correct for
geometrical errors in the calculation of the 3D coor-
dinates of a landmark viewed on 2 cephalometric ra-
diographs, and suggested that the new corrected com-
puted method reduces the geometrical errors so that
they are not greater than the measurement errors.
With the advent of CT in the late 1970s, it was
thought that CT could replace conventional radio-
graphy. Although CT technologies have an enormously
important role in medicine, orthodontic applications
have been impractical because of the high radiation
dose, high cost and poor spatial resolution. The ad-
vancement of imaging technologies made it possible to
develop new devices called cone beam CT.12 By over-
coming the limitations of conventional CT, cone beam
CT might be an alternative tool to the conventional ra-
diograph, which can provide 3D reconstruction of the
entire craniofacial skeleton for use in orthodontics.
For the application of CT scans to the field of or-
thodontics, many authors tried to investigate the reli-
ability of the CT measurements and also tried to com-
pare it with that of conventional cephalometry. Chris-
tiansen et al.13 suggested that linear measurements
from CT have an observer error and accuracy within
acceptable limits whether they are done in vitro or in
situ on normal TMJ components. Hildebolt et al.14
tried to quantify the morphology of the skull based on
surface features that can be found in CT scans and 3D
reconstructions. They concluded that 3D CT measure-
ments are superior to those in which measurements
were obtained directly from the original CT slices.
Matteson et al.15 found that measurements taken from
CT scan were much more accurate than those obtained
from cephalometric films and that the interobserver
variability of the CT measurements was only 0.10 to
0.66 mm. Kragskov et al.16
compared the reliability of
anatomic cephalometric points from conventional ra-
diography and 3D CT and concluded that the benefit
of 3D CT is indicated for severe asymmetric patients.
Adams et al.17 compared the 3D imaging system and
traditional cephalometry for accuracy in recording the
anatomic structures as defined by physical measure-
ments with a caliper. They concluded that the 3D meth-
od is more precise and accurate than the 2D approach.
Many authors stood by 3D measurements from the
viewpoint of reliability. However, there were little me-
thods for 3D measurements to be applied in clinical
use. This might be due to lack of investigation about
the correlation between cephalometric radiography and
3D CT. This study was performed to investigate the
difference in the landmark positions from conventional
cephalometric radiography to the projected images
from CT scans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Sample selection
The sample was comprised of 20 adult patients who
had received mandibular setback surgery to correct
mandibular prognathism (ODI; 53.1 ± 5.1, APDI; 99.2
± 5.8). Severe asymmetry cases were excluded. Half of
Vol. 38, No. 6, 2008. Korean J Orthod Comparison of landmark position between cephalometry and CT
429
Fig 1. Overall procedure.
Fig 2. Acquirement of projected images from CT data. A, Segmentation of skull and skin part using V works; B, pro-jected image to midsagittal plane. By reducing the transparency of the skin part, the projected image looks more likea cephalometric radiograph.
them were male, and the others were female. The
range of patient age was from 18 years 8 months to
33 years 3 months (average was 23 years 6 months).
CT data acquisition was performed using a
Somatom Plus 4 (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with a
1.5 mm section interval, a 1 mm slice thickness in spi-
ral mode, and a 512 × 512 matrix. The resultant 2D
image data was stored in Digital Imaging and
Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format.
Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken with
CX90SP (Ashahi, Tokyo, Japan). The target film dis-
tance was 15 cm, the focus target distance was 150
cm, and the magnification ratio was 110%. All the ra-
diographs were traced by one orthodontist.
3D data processing; V works 4.0 and V sur-gery
Fig 1 shows the overall procedure. 3D image was
reconstructed from the CT slice image using V-works
4.0 (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea). The bony parts were
segmented out from each slice image using a threshold
value of 176 HU (12 bit depth). The soft tissue parts
were segmented out using a threshold value of -285
HU (Fig 2, A). The reconstructed image was positioned
in 3D coordinate system. Park et al.18
suggested a 3D
coordinate system as follows. The horizontal reference
plane was the FH plane composed with both Porion
(Po) and left Orbitale (Or). The midsagittal plane was
constructed perpendicular to the FH plane, and in-
cluded the neck of crista galli (Nc) and midpoint of
Foramen Spinosum simultaneously. The coronal refer-
ence plane was selected as the plane simultaneously
perpendicular to the horizontal and midsagittal plane,
including the PNS. The repositioned skull and skin
models were exported to V surgery (Cybermed, Seoul,
Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI 대치교정지 38권 6호, 2008년
430
Landmark Definition
Na The junction of the nasal and frontal bones as seen on the profile of the cephalometric radiograph;
point in the midline of both the nasal root and the nasofrontal suture
Or The lowest point on the lower margin of each orbit
A The deepest midline point on the premaxilla between anterior nasal spine and prosthion
Is The mid-point of the incisal edge of the maxillary central incisor
Ba The most inferior posterior point in the sagittal plane on the anterior rim of foramen magnum
U6Cr The mesiobuccal cusp tip of the maxillary 1st molar
Po The highest point on the upper margin of porus acusticus externus
PtmThe most posterior point on the outline of the pterygopalatine fossa: The geometric center of
foramen rotundum which can be found in the most anterior coronal section
Rh The most anterior inferior point on the tips of the nasal bones
ANS The most anterior point of the nasal floor; tip of premaxilla
PNS The most posterior point on the hard palate
U1apex The root tip of the maxillary central incisor
S The center of sella turcica
Ii The mid-point of the incisal edge of the mandibular central incisor
BThe most posterior point of the bony curvature of the mandible below infradental and above
pogonion
Pog The most anterior point on the symphysis of the mandible
MeThe lowest point of the contour of the mandibular symphysis: The lowest median landmark
on the lower border of the mandible- concave surface under the mentum in the mid-sagittal plane
Me’The lowest most point of the contour of the mandibular symphysis:
defined only in the projected image
Go The point on the bony contour of the gonial angle determined by bisecting the tangent angle
L1apex The root tip of the mandibular central incisor
Table 1. Definition of selected landmark
Korea) after selection of the landmarks. Table 1 shows
the selected landmarks. Projected images from the 3D
model were obtained by reducing the transparency of
the skin part. Projected images were saved as a pdf
file format, and magnified to 110% using photoshop
6.0 (Fig 2, B).
Superimposition of projected images with cephalometric tracings
Because of the positional difference of the mandible
according to body posture, the projected images had to
be superimposed with cephalometric tracing in two
ways. For overall superimposition, projected image to
midsagittal plane was generated by reducing the trans-
parency of the skin part. This made such an effect that
the projected image looked like a cephalometric
radiograph. Two reference points were arbitrarily se-
lected along the FH plane in the lower area of the pro-
jected image (Fig 3, A). Cephalometric radiograph was
traced (Fig 3, B). Two images were superimposed by
overlapping the structures such as the anterior margin
of frontal bone, dorsum of nose, and inferior margin of
occipital bone between the two images. And then, the
two reference points were copied to the tracing (Fig 3, C).
To compare the landmark position, a common Carte-
sian coordinates was established from the two refer-
ence points. Horizontal reference line (X axis) was
Vol. 38, No. 6, 2008. Korean J Orthod Comparison of landmark position between cephalometry and CT
431
Fig 3. Superimposition of projected images with cephalometric tracings and establishment of common Cartesian coordinates. A, Two reference points were created parallel to the FH plane in the projected images; B, cephalometric radiograph was traced; C, projected image and tracing were superimposed on to frontal bone and occipital bone, andthen the two reference points were copied to the tracing for reprinting of a common coordinate system.
generated by connecting the two points, which was
parallel to the FH plane of the projected image.
Another line for Cartesian coordinates (Y axis) could
be made perpendicular to the FH plane, including a
left sided reference point. After superimposition, a
common Cartesian coordinates was reprinted from the
duplicated two reference points.
For mandibular superimposition, all the steps were
the same as the overall superimposition. The only dif-
ference was the structures to be superimposed. The an-
terior margin of the symphysis was used for superim-
posion.
Landmark selection
Table 1 shows the definition of landmarks used in
this study. Midpoint was used when the landmark was
located in the left and right side. Me’ was newly de-
fined in the projected images as the lowest point of the
mandibular symphysis. The definition of Me’ in ceph-
alometry was the same as that of Me. The positional
difference between Me and Me’ was also calculated.
Comparison of the landmark position be-tween projected images and tracing
To compare the positional difference of landmarks,
paired t-test was performed with the X and Y coor-
dinate values of landmarks obtained from projected im-
ages and tracings. The X and Y coordinate values
from tracings were subtracted from the values from
projected images to calculate the coordinate value dif-
ference. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of coor-
dinate value difference were calculated.
All the landmarks were selected twice by one ortho-
dontist with a lapse of four weeks, and the standard er-
ror (SE) was calculated to investigate the intraobserver
repeatability.
RESULTS
Intraobserver repeatability is shown in Table 2. For
cephalometric radiography, the error range was from
0.41 to 0.87 mm in the X axis, and from 0.37 to 0.73
mm in the Y axis. In 3D CT, the error range was from
0.37 to 0.95 mm in the X axis, from 0.49 to 1.37 mm
in the Y axis.
Table 3 shows the mean, SD, and result of paired
t test. The difference was from −0.14 ± 0.65 to −2.12
to 2.89 mm in the X axis, and from 0.34 ± 0.78 to
6.79 ± 3.04 mm in the Y axis. In the X axis, Pog
showed the smallest standard error and Po showed the
largest. In the Y axis, Me’ showed the smallest error and
Po showed the largest error and Ptm showed an extra-
ordinary large error. Except for Ptm, the error range in
the Y axis was from 0.34 ± 0.78 to −2.36 ± 2.55 mm.
Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI 대치교정지 38권 6호, 2008년
432
Cephalometric radiography 3D CT
X axis Y axis X axis Y axis
Nasion
Orbitale
A point
Incision superius
Basion
U6Cr
Porion
Pterygomaxillary fissure
Rhinion
Anterior nasal spine
Posterior nasal spine
U1apex
Sella
Incision inferius
B point
Pogonion
Menton
Gonion
L1apex
0.87
0.49
0.55
0.44
0.44
0.41
0.50
0.61
0.59
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.59
0.49
0.50
0.47
0.48
0.42
0.50
0.48
0.45
0.49
0.45
0.53
0.48
0.63
0.46
0.62
0.37
0.37
0.40
0.39
0.54
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.73
0.40
0.71
0.70
0.37
0.40
0.75
0.63
0.56
0.73
0.75
0.42
0.48
0.57
0.69
0.30
0.44
0.61
0.78
0.95
0.40
1.81
0.76
0.91
0.90
0.70
0.41
0.73
1.37
0.92
1.00
0.42
0.67
0.49
0.51
1.18
1.05
0.96
1.31
0.84
U6Cr, The mesiobuccal cusp tip of the maxillary 1st molar; U1apex, the root tip of the maxillary central incisor;
L1apex, the root tip of the mandibular central incisor.
Table 2. Intraobserver repeatability for landmark selection in cephalometric radiography and 3D CT (unit: mm)
There were significant differences in 11 out of 20
landmarks in the X axis, 13 out of 20 in the Y axis.
Only 4 out of 20 landmarks showed no significant dif-
ferences as a result. All the landmarks in the mandible
showed significant differences in the Y axis except for
only one landmark, the apex of the lower incisor.
Fig 4 shows the difference in landmark positions.
The arrow head shows the landmark position in the ra-
diograph and base of the arrow is the position in the
projected image. The size of the arrow corresponds to
the amount of error.
DISCUSSION
The error ranges from this study were similar to the
previous study for the landmark identification. Richard-
son19
investigated the interobserver and intraobserver
differences for the cephalometric landmarks, and con-
cluded that the error ranges were below 2 mm. Midt-
gard et al.4 showed an intraobserver error range from
0.50 ± 0.13 to 2.44 ± 0.46 mm and all of the 15 land-
marks showed significant differences in each iden-
tification. Liu et al.20
compared the errors for automatic
and manual landmark identification, and concluded that
the accuracy of computerized automatic identification
was acceptable for certain landmarks only. Nine out of
14 landmarks showed significant differences in his
study. In manual identification, horizontal errors ranged
from 0.38 ± 0.21 to 1.83 ± 0.79 mm, vertical errors
ranged from 0.47 ± 0.22 to 1.70 ± 1.31 mm. In auto-
matic identification, horizontal errors ranged from 0.57
± 0.42 to 3.04 ± 2.86 mm, and vertical errors from
0.65 ± 0.52 to 4.30 ± 3.58 mm.
There were significant differences in 16 out of 20
landmarks in the x and/or y direction. This might mean
that the position of cephalometric landmarks did not
Vol. 38, No. 6, 2008. Korean J Orthod Comparison of landmark position between cephalometry and CT
433
Fig 4. Difference of landmark position; arrow head is the position in the radiograph, base of arrow is the position in the projected image, and the size of arrow corresponds to the amount of error.
LandmarkX-axis Y-axis
Mean ± SD p-value Mean ± SD p-value
Nasion
Orbitale
A point
Incision superius
Basion
U6Cr
Porion
Pterygomaxillary fissure
Rhinion
Anterior nasal spine
Posterior nasal spine
U1apex
Sella
Incision inferius
B point
Pogonion
Menton
Menton’
Gonion
L1apex
1.01 ± 1.02
0.58 ± 1.50
2.97 ± 1.56
−0.60 ± 0.92−0.30 ± 1.86 0.13 ± 1.23
−2.12 ± 2.89−0.44 ± 1.71−0.81 ± 1.41 1.58 ± 1.63
−1.78 ± 2.32−0.46 ± 1.79 0.23 ± 0.92
−1.07 ± 1.08−0.43 ± 0.62−0.14 ± 0.65 0.28 ± 1.46
−0.02 ± 1.38−1.45 ± 1.30−0.87 ± 1.17
0.00*
0.10
0.00*
0.01*
0.47
0.65
0.00*
0.26
0.02*
0.00*
0.00*
0.27
0.28
0.00*
0.01*
0.33
0.39
0.96
0.00*
0.00*
0.47 ± 2.60
0.34 ± 0.78
−1.44 ± 1.41−0.71 ± 0.97−0.06 ± 1.48−0.25 ± 1.16−2.36 ± 2.55 6.79 ± 3.04
1.04 ± 1.31
−1.07 ± 0.86−0.36 ± 1.26 0.42 ± 2.10
1.15 ± 1.04
1.04 ± 0.84
−2.73 ± 2.00 1.24 ± 1.70
0.93 ± 0.97
−0.48 ± 0.63 2.41 ± 1.62
−0.84 ± 1.80
0.43
0.07
0.00*
0.00*
0.86
0.35
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.21
0.38
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.05
U6Cr, The mesiobuccal cusp tip of the maxillary 1st molar; U1apex, the root tip of the maxillary central incisor;
L1apex, the root tip of the mandibular central incisor. *p < 0.05, paired t-test.
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of coordinate value difference between cephalometric radiography and 3D CT (unit: mm)
coincide with that of projected 3D landmarks. This
was anticipated from the fact that there were two types
of errors in the cephalometric radiograph errors of pro-
jection and errors of identification.2 Moreover, the meth-
ods of making 2D images were slightly different be-
tween cephalometric radiographs and projected 3D
images. Cephalometric radiographs were produced as the
central ray was radially projected onto the midsagital
plane. In projected 3D images the central ray was pro-
jected perpendicular to the midsagittal plane. In addition,
the midsagittal plane on cephalometric radiograph might
not be identical to that in the projected 3D image. In
spite of these imperfections, there might be other sources
of error to be categorized between cephalometric radio-
graphs and projected 3D images in this study.
Errors from the difference of body posture (Fig 5):
body posture could affect the mandibular resting po-
Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI 대치교정지 38권 6호, 2008년
434
Fig 5. Errors from differences in body posture. Projected image showed backward downward move-ment of the mandible.
Fig 6. Errors from the discrepancy of midsagittal plane selected between x-ray taking and projected images. Anteriorcontour of radiograph was changed with increase in projection angle. A, Projected line was perpendicular to the mid-sagittal plane; B, projected line was tilted to the midsagittal plane.
sition. Radiographs were taken in the upright position
with a cephalostat, and CT scans were taken in the su-
pine position. To avoid the errors from positional dif-
ference, projected images were superimposed with the
cephalometric tracing in two ways; overall super-
imposition and mandibular superimposition.
Errors from the discrepancy of midsagittal plane se-
lected between x ray taking and projected images (Fig
6): these errors might arise from the discrepancy of the
midsagittal plane between that defined for the x ray
taking and that selected from the CT images. These
kinds of errors also could occur in the landmarks
which were defined in the midsagittal plane concep-
tually. The landmarks corresponding to this kind of er-
rors were Na, Is, Ii, B, and vertical postion of Pog.
Errors from masking of bony end projections (Fig 7):
the end of bony projections was so thin that radio-
graphic images could not sharply demarcate its struc-
ture. Its image was obscured by adjacent structures so
that the position of landmark was selected posterior to
the real position on radiograph. Rh, ANS, A, and the
horizontal position of PNS were the landmarks corre-
spondent to this kind of error.
Errors from the superimposition of adjacent struc-
tures: in some anatomic structures, shapes in the cross
sectioned image were different from the shapes in
stacked images. Po is a good example: meandering au-
ditory meatus might not only obscure the exact land-
mark position, but also change the position itself. The
vertical position of S was another example: since pitui-
tary gland is consisted of two lobes, the center of the
base is somewhat elevated than the adjacent area,
which brings the S position down.
Errors from the positional differences defined in the
radiograph and CT scans (Fig 8): Me was the repre-
sentative point of this example. Cephalometric defi-
nition of Me is the lowest point of the contour of the
Vol. 38, No. 6, 2008. Korean J Orthod Comparison of landmark position between cephalometry and CT
435
Fig 7. Errors from the masking of bony projection. A, Ray sum images of the entire head made the position of ANS appear more backward; B, ray sum image around point ANS revealed its original position.
Fig 8. Errors from the positional differences defined in the radiograph and CT scans. A, Ray sum image of entirehead made the position of Ptm appear more downward and backward; B, ray sum image around point Ptm revealedits original position.
mandibular symphysis, but Me in CT images is the
lowest median landmark positioned on the concave
surface at the lower border of the mandible. The dif-
ference of definition makes an error in the vertical po-
sition of Me. Ptm was another example: cephalometric
definition is the most posterior point on the outline of
the pterygopalatine fossa, which is usually located in
the 11 o’clock direction. However, this is the geo-
metric center of foramen rotundum which can be found
most anteriorly in coronal sections in CT images. The
extraordinary high error in the vertical position of Ptm
can be explained by the difference in definition.
The errors of projection and the errors of identi-
fication might play a role in the positional differences
of landmarks between two images, but it was certain
that there were some sources of error from the limi-
tation of the radiograph itself. Further studies would be
needed to minimize or compensate for these errors.
CONCLUSION
Several landmarks showed significant positional dif-
Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI 대치교정지 38권 6호, 2008년
436
ferences between cephalometric radiography and CT
images projected to midsagittal plane. This might be
originated from the innate shortcommings of radio-
graphy. For the clinical use of 3D cephalometry, fur-
ther study was needed to investigate the positional re-
lation of landmarks between cephalometric radiography
and CT scans.
-국문 록 -
3차원 CT자료에서 선정된 계측 을
정 시상면으로 투사한 상과
두부계측방사선사진상의 계측 의 치 비교
박재우aㆍ김남국bㆍ장 일c
본 연구는 두부계측방사선사진에서 선정한 계측 과, 3차원 CT 상에서 계측 을 선정하고 이를 정 시상면으로 투
하 을때 두 계측 사이의 치 연 성에 해 알아보
고자 시행하 다. III 부정교합을 주소로 서울 학교 치과
병원에 내원한 환자 20명을 상으로 술 에 CT와 두부방사선사진을 촬 하 다. CT자료에서 계측 을 선정하고, 정시상면을 기 으로 투사 상을 얻은 후에 이것을 110%로 확 하 다. 두면과 후두골의 외연을 기 으로 두부방사
선사진 투사도와 CT자료의 정 시상면 투사 상을 첩하
고, FH평면을 기 으로 공통 좌표계를 설정하 다. 이 좌표계를 기 으로 얻은 계측 좌표값 차이의 평균과 표 편차
를 구하고 paired t test를 시행하 다. X축은 −0.14 ± 0.65에서 −2.12 ± 2.89 mm, Y축은 0.34 ± 0.78에서 −2.36 ± 2.55 mm (6.79 ± 3.04 mm)의 범 를 보 으며, 20개의 계측 X축은 9개에서, Y축은 7개에서 통계 으로 유의한
차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 오차는 촬 자세에 따
라 악골의 치가 변화한 경우, 골단부에 치함으로써 주변 구조물에 가려진 경우, 해부학 구조물의 첩에 따른 식별
오차, 계측 의 정의가 다른 경우 발생할 수 있다.
주요 단어: 계측 치, 두부계측방사선사진, 3D CT에서
투사된 상
REFERENCES
1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to
orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931;1:45-66.
2. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measure-
ments. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-27.
3. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection
errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod
1986;8:141-8.
4. Midtgard J, Bjork G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of
cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cepha-
lometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod 1974;44:56-61.
5. Tng TT, Chan TC, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalo-
metric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur
J Orthod 1994;16:110-20.
6. Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of
error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J
Orthod 1986;8:149-51.
7. Grayson BH, McCarthy JG, Bookstein F. Analysis of craniofa-
cial asymmetry by multiplane cephalometry. Am J Orthod
1983;84:217-24.
8. Baumrind S, Moffitt FH, Curry S. Three-dimensional x-ray
stereometry from paired coplanar images: a progress report.
Am J Orthod 1983;84:292-312.
9. Grayson B, Cutting C, Bookstein FL, Kim H, McCarthy JG.
The three-dimensional cephalogram: theory, technique, and
clinical application. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;
94:327-37.
10. Kusnoto B, Evans CA, BeGole EA, de Rijk W. Assessment of
3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurement.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:390-9.
11. Rousset MM, Simonek F, Dubus JP. A method for correction
of radiographic errors in serial three-dimensional cephalometry.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:50-9.
12. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A
new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the
cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8:
1558-64.
13. Christiansen EL, Thompson JR, Kopp S. Intra- and inter-ob-
server variability and accuracy in the determination of linear
and angular measurements in computed tomography. An in vi-
tro and in situ study of human mandibles. Acta Odontol Scand
1986;44:221-9.
14. Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. Validation study of
skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measure-
ments. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990;82:283-94.
15. Matteson SR, Bechtold W, Phillips C, Staab EV. A method for
three-dimensional image reformation for quantitative cephalo-
metric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:1053-61.
16. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S.
Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic land-
marks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimen-
sional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:111-6.
17. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher
DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional ceph-
alometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:397-409.
18. Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI. Formulation of a reference co-
ordinate system of three-dimensional (3D) head and neck im-
ages: Part I. Reproducibility of 3D cephalometric landmarks.
Korean J Orthod 2005;35:388-97.
19. Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of
some points, planes, and lines used in cephalometric analysis.
Am J Orthod 1966;52:637-51.
20. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized auto-
matic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:535-40.